Cooking with Linux: Virtual Dramamine

In this editorial, Matt takes a look at what might happen when large companies get involved in the Linux community.

I'm sure that I am not the only Linux
enthusiast who is kept awake at night by the following terrible
vision: One day, while flipping through one of my favorite computer
rags, I come upon a full-color two-page advertisement. The large
caption reads, “New Technology for a New Generation”, and above it
is a glossy photo of Bill Gates, proudly holding forth a box
emblazened with the logo: “Microsoft Linux NT”. It gives me chills
just thinking about it. Excuse me while I get another cup of coffee
and a dramamine.

Are you plagued by nightmares of the commercialization of
Linux? Frightened, as so many are, that multibillion-dollar
corporations are going to snatch Linux away from the hands of the
grunt hackers, who shed so much blood, sweat, and nutritional
health to develop this system from the ground up? Does every line
of code that you write, every command to you type, resound with one
single purpose—“Keep Linux Safe and Legal”?

If so, there's help for you. Here at the Linux Journal
Paranoia Support Center we specialize in calming jittery nerves and
putting those fears to rest. To prove to you that our service
works, this article contains the complete text for your first
counseling session—free of charge. If, after reading this article,
the image of a gold-toothed Bill Gates still lurks in the corners
of your most frightening dreams, call us. We're here to
help.

First, the problem: As everyone is well aware, the GNU
General Public License has provisions which allow vendors to sell
free software, even for profit. In fact, a number of companies are
currently doing so: Yggdrasil, Trans-AmeriTech, and
Softlanding—just to name a few—sell Linux on various media
formats, generally via mail order. And, I think we would all agree,
this is a Good Thing. It allows those not fortunate enough to have
Internet access to still get their hands on the Linux software, at
a modest fee. In fact, the prices charged for Linux CD-ROMs are
becoming increasingly competitive—ranging anywhere from $199 to
under $30.

Some of these CD-ROMs are simply mirrors of Linux FTP archive
sites, where your mileage may vary and some complete distributions,
maintained and supported by the distributor, including consulting.
The Yggdrasil Fall 1993 CD-ROM manual even claims that for a flat
fee of $500, they will fix the problem of your choice and send you
a shiny gold CD with the problem fixed. Wonderful! You know, I've
been having problems running Microsoft Windows applications under
Linux—I wonder if they can do anything about that.

You may be aware that Linus didn't originally intend to
license Linux under the GPL. At first, he wanted to impose the
additional restriction that nobody could sell Linux for profit—a
reasonable expectation, back when the only working device drivers
were the console and the serial electric cheese grater. Who'd want
to make money off of Linux, anyway? All it could do then was run
gcc and make nachos (but, at the same time!).

Eventually, however, Linus gave into political extremism and
decided to make Linux a textbook case with which to test the
validity and extent of the GPL. As far as I know, Linux is the only
(non-mythical) operating system licensed under the GPL, and most of
the software used by Linux is covered by the GPL as well. A tasty
morsel has been thrown into the sharkpool of the free software
world, and it remains to be seen how well the GPL will protect the
system from legal turmoil.

Thus far, the fish to bite the Linux bait have been somewhat
small-mostly startup companies that are able to market the software
on a small scale. Without large-scale marketing, Linux is still
controlled and developed by the volunteers who brought it this far.
We are still free to implement new features—or break old ones—on
a whim, without pressure from any ferocious marketing
megalomaniacs.

However, larger companies have started to turn a hungry eye
towards Linux. Here, before them, is a complete 32-bit UNIX
implementation for the PC—and it's free! The word “free” causes
the heads of marketing vice-presidents everywhere to ring with
alarms and buzzers. In some of them, it initiates a salivation
response not unlike that in Pavlov's dogs.

You see, large companies like Microsoft and Novell have the
resources and programmer-power to take Linux, squandering on the
Net amongst a group of loosely-knit volunteers, and turn it into
something robust, marketable, and probably a bit frightening. A
recent issue of PC Week contained an announcement that Novell has
plans to base a new graphical environment on Linux. With news such
as this, less than a few months after the release of kernel version
1.0, others are sure to follow. Hence, the vivid nightmares of
Microsoft Linux NT.

The GPL allows anyone to take Linux, modify it, and market it
in whatever way that they please—as long as the modifications are
also covered by the GPL. This means that Novell's modifications to
Linux must be made freely distributable—perhaps by being available
via anonymous FTP. There is an exception to this: If Novell's
system were not to involve any changes to the Linux kernel itself,
but acted as a completely separate entity (for example, a graphical
system running on top of the Linux kernel), Novell would not be
required to license their system under the GPL. Of course, the
Linux kernel, and any modifications to it, will always be free
under the GPL. But independent software which runs with Linux as a
base may not be.

Like me, your head is probably buzzing with legalese.

If you're confused, grab a copy of the GNU GPL from
prep.ai.mit.edu, in the file pub/gnu/COPYING. Or, if you

have a Linux system, chances are the GPL can be found in the
directory /usr/src/linux, along with the kernel sources. The idea
is that nobody can take Linux and do anything to it that's not
freely distributable.

What does this all mean? It means that a large company, such
as Microsoft, could take Linux and market it. In some sense, that's
good. Never mind that hard-working volunteers like Linus may never
see a penny of Microsoft's funny money—most of the Linux
developers don't expect to make anything from the commercialization
of their software, and that's fine.

If Linus truly felt that he was getting ripped off, he would
distribute Linux under a different license. Making money isn't the
important thing—hacking the system is.

This brings us to the other edge of the sword—and what a
sharp one it is. In addition to marketing Linux, a large
corporation could throw a team of experienced programmers at it,
and pay them to develop Linux full-time. This well-paid commercial
cadre, given nothing better to do, could possibly implement
features in the Linux system that the disorganized network of
volunteers would agonize over for months. Don't underestimate the
power of cooperation. Given enough cash and a cluster of offices
not ten feet away from each other—as opposed to thousands of
miles, which is the current maxim—a team of programmers putting
their heads together could accomplish things that those of us who
only hack Linux during our spare cycles could never do in any
reasonable amount of time. Of course, these modifications would be
available freely, and could perhaps be incorporated into the
standard kernel for all to use.

While some would welcome the commercial development of Linux,
I think that it could take away the single most important aspect of
the system: That it was developed by volunteers and hackers. Yes,
some of those hackers are professionals in the computing industry,
yet they act as hackers—not as representatives of a corporation
with a vested interest in seeing Linux develop. Not in order to
promote their own financial gain, but in order to promote the cause
of Linux itself.

If nothing else, Linux should strive to retain its heritage,
inasmuch as it has one, as a system developed by and for hackers,
and volunteers in particular. (I'd just like to see how far we can
get without the help of Big Business.) It's clear, however, that
there's no stopping the eventual commercial development of Linux.
So, what can we do? The best course of action would be to establish
a healthy, working relationship between the current hacker
community and the commercial development community. Because all
code will be covered by the GPL, the hackers and professionals can
share the fruits of each other's efforts as much as they like. The
commercial expansion of Linux isn't something to fear, except for
purists who may not wish to use any professionally-developed
code.

Whatever happens, Linux can still remain a hackers' operating
system. The do-it-yourself attitude can survive, even if commercial
development plows forward. If the point behind Linux was just to
produce a complete, working UNIX system, nobody would
bother—there's already NetBSD. Instead, the thrust is to do it by
hand, to implement a UNIX system more or less from scratch. As long
as there is Linux, there will be hackers.

Ostensibly I have no problem with Linux being marketed well.
Although it does put some degree of pressure on the developers. It
can't do any harm, and as we have seen, commercialization is good
for Linux. One thing to watch out for with respect to marketing is
who claims ownership for the Linux software. It wouldn't be right
for any company to make Linux appear to be their own product.
Although the proper copyright notices may be buried within the
kernel source, the major Linux developers deserve credit for their
work, at the least.

What have we learned? Well, first of all, that there's no
reason to fear the floating head of Bill. A commercialized product
based on Linux would have to be freely distributable, and we can
all benefit from that. However, it's very important that Linux
itself remains a hackers' operating system. No problem. Even if
Microsoft develops and markets Linux NT for us, I imagine that
folks like Linus and Ted will still spend night after night,
staring at the console, wondering why the hell the serial cheese
grater device stopped working.

Geek Guides

Pick up any e-commerce web or mobile app today, and you’ll be holding a mashup of interconnected applications and services from a variety of different providers. For instance, when you connect to Amazon’s e-commerce app, cookies, tags and pixels that are monitored by solutions like Exact Target, BazaarVoice, Bing, Shopzilla, Liveramp and Google Tag Manager track every action you take. You’re presented with special offers and coupons based on your viewing and buying patterns. If you find something you want for your birthday, a third party manages your wish list, which you can share through multiple social- media outlets or email to a friend. When you select something to buy, you find yourself presented with similar items as kind suggestions. And when you finally check out, you’re offered the ability to pay with promo codes, gifts cards, PayPal or a variety of credit cards.